Bridgepoint: Bad for Students, Good for Gamblers?

San Diego–based Bridgepoint Education, the for-profit online school that spends more on marketing and promotion than it spends on education, may now be escalating efforts to pump up its stock.

It seems to be doing such a masterful — if extremely dubious — job that if I shot craps in the market (and I don’t), I might gamble on Bridgepoint stock. Are you shocked? In numerous columns and blog items, I have consistently characterized the company’s ethics as…well…crappy. But if you’re rolling the dice in stocks, you don’t care about the quality of a stock or the probity of the company’s management.

Bridgepoint pulled a slick one the last week of January. For several years, investigators from the U.S. Department of Education have been probing the student-recruitment techniques of Ashford University, Bridgepoint’s major school, in which 99 percent of the students are online. The results came out early Monday, January 24. The thrust of the government’s report was negative — in fact, the investigators warned that in the worst-case scenario, Ashford could lose all its government loans and grants. Since they account for 85 percent of Bridgepoint’s revenue, the company could be finished.

But Bridgepoint issued an immediate news release saying it was pleased that the government had “narrowed the scope” of several findings in its initial report and had made “significant reductions” in earlier recommendations. That might have been true, but taken as a whole, the report was biting. Investigators concluded that Ashford’s recruiter compensation was based on number of enrollments and didn’t meet government requirements; the university didn’t properly perform federal student-aid calculations, didn’t return funds promptly, retained students’ credit balances without authorization, and didn’t provide documentation for students’ leaves of absence. Because of the “seriousness of the findings,” investigators warned that there could be fines, limitations, suspension, or even termination of the company’s participation in federal aid funds.

But the day of its deftly spun statement, Bridgepoint’s stock soared more than 5 percent, and it zoomed more than 3 percent the following day. The major reason was probably that short sellers, who bet that a stock will go down, were rushing to “cover” their shorts by buying Bridgepoint shares. Before the announcement, half of Bridgepoint’s trading shares were short — in effect, half the money in Bridgepoint stock was hoping it would go down. That is extremely high. And, perversely, having a large number of shares short is often considered bullish. That’s because when something good happens to the company, the shorts will rush to “cover” — that is, buy the stock and get out of their short positions. It’s often a stampede, sending the shares soaring.

Ken Cavalli, a New York analyst who is bullish on Bridgepoint, says that last time the short ratio got around 50 percent, the stock soared to $28. On Monday it was trading at $18.55.

Cavalli points to Bridgepoint’s astonishing growth rate. Revenues were $7.95 million in 2005 and should hit $871.3 million this year. But the stock sells for only 9.49 times earnings — well below the multiple of the average stock these days. “The net profit margins are close to 18 percent; the average company in America is 5 percent,” says Cavalli. Taking various statistical measures into account, “You’re getting four times better than the average company at one-third the price,” he says, noting that Bridgepoint has an amazing $230 million in cash.

So how did Bridgepoint get so rich? And why have investors been reluctant to buy the stock? The reason: there is a feeling among thought leaders that Bridgepoint and many of its for-profit confreres have been raking in taxpayer money while providing an inferior education. For example, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat from Iowa who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, notes that in 2008 students at for-profit schools accounted for 10 percent of those in college and racked up a shocking 44 percent of loan defaults.

Bridgepoint is Harkin’s favorite target. In a December speech on the Senate floor, Harkin said that 84 percent of Bridgepoint students seeking two-year degrees dropped out before they completed the first year. The next highest dropout rate for such students at for-profit colleges was 69.9 percent. “And 63 percent of bachelor’s degree–seeking students leave Ashford within one year, without finishing their programs,” said Harkin. In the fall of 2009, Bridgepoint signed up 48,000 students. Over the school year, Bridgepoint recruited another 77,000. So during the year there were 125,000 enrollees, but at year-end there were only 67,000, said Harkin. Half “didn’t stick around. They were out the door,” said Harkin.

“What do you think happened to their [federal] loans?” asked Harkin indignantly. Or their grants? “Students get those back? Not on your life. Bridgepoint kept them; the money went to their shareholders.”

Federal tax money flows to Bridgepoint and other for-profit schools, but too few students finish their courses, and those who graduate find it hard to get jobs. That’s why the default rate is so high.

And that’s why the investment community has been shy to embrace these stocks, despite the sky-high profits that companies like Bridgepoint post.

The Department of Education is cracking down. On July 1, new regulations are scheduled to go into effect. One would bar schools from paying recruiters according to how many students they enroll; another would stop deceptive advertising; a third would require schools to measure defaults more accurately. Implementation of the most controversial one, the “gainful employment” rule, has been delayed as the industry has aggressively lobbied Congress. This proposal would tie eligibility for federal aid to graduates’ incomes and loan-repayment rates. The rule could cripple many for-profits.

An industry trade group announced January 21 that it is suing the federal government in an attempt to overturn the proposed rules. One self-proclaimed watchdog group asserts that by proposing the regulations, the Department of Education is trying to help the short sellers. The department says the assertion is “patently ridiculous,” and that is the truth; bumpkins — including many in Congress — consider short sellers to be antipatriotic. No government agency would try to help them.

Comments

If Bridgepoint only ends up getting fines, the company will be happy as a pig in chiffon. That's only a (low) cost of doing business. Microsoft long ago learned that game: A few $million in fines is no biggie, and doesn't affect profits much.
Bridgepoint and their ilk are a drain on the U.S. treasury, and a disgrace to higher education. The company SHOULD be "finished."

You hit the nail on the head. Bridgepoint is loaded with cash. It can handle any fine. Usually, regulators' fines are minuscule, particularly compared with what the company can pay. If the Republicans force weaker regulation on the Obama administration, Bridgepoint could get off with a wrist slap. The stock could take off. It has already been strong since the announcement of the DOE's initial findings. Best, Don Bauder

It seems that the taxpayers are, once again, going to be the big losers when private enterprise manages to insert themselves as a middleman-much like health insurance companies. In an ideal world taxes collected should directly fund education for all. The escalating cost of college combined with academic underachievment and few jobs plus parents that insist their kids "do something!" lead to this type of abuse. The new regulations not taking effect until July? Plenty of time to kill reform. Nice job as usual, Don

For-profits claim that they are filling a vacuum by offering educational opportunities to those who cannot avail themselves of a non-profit education. But critics state that these for-profits are aggressively getting students to enroll who have little likelihood of either getting a degree or getting a job if they happen to get a degree. And the federal government through its loans and grants picks up the tab. The key statistic is that for-profit students represent 10% of those in college but 44% of defaults. Best, Don Bauder

Can a young person "bootstrap" her way through a university education without incurring a lifetime of debt?

Not today.

SDSU was $150 a semester in 1982, community colleges were free. Today SDSU is $2500 per semester and CC are $250 per class.

UC Hastings College of the Law (public CA law school) and UCLA SOL were $5K per year in 1982, today it is close to $40K.

Professional schools like law, dentistry and medicine should have always been more, but today they are near the same cost as a private university. I knew when Dukmejin started claiming that students at community colleges could afford $5 per unit that it was just a ruse to get his foot in the tuition fee door, and once that door was open the sky would be the limit-and I was correct.

Good questions. My guess is that there are answers for most of them. Some questions are subjective. For instance, you ask how many "qualified" students have been rejected in different time frames. How do you define "qualified?" Best, Don Bauder

How does the system of higher education define "qualified?" THAT is the question.

My point in asking these questions is to illustrate the level of denial we are in as a society about the whole issue of how well or how poorly we address the needs and demands of our people for education. There is a whole herd of elephants in the room here, and it is time that we acknowledged them.

The relevance of this line of enquiry to your piece is that if it weren't for those elephants, this problem would go away. Of course this course of enquiry, dis discourse, is an inconvenient one--that's what keeps elephants in the closet. Does anyone smell hypocrisy?

Nobody said the non-profit colleges and universities are flawless. If you want my opinion, we are giving too many people a college education. The result has been lower academic standards. And people with college degrees doing menial work that hardly requires a degree. Best, Don Bauder

What I am asking is to what degree those flaws, admitted (though I can't name any that have been admitted by those in charge) and denied (covered up by almost the entire academic community) might be causing a vacuum that is being "filled" by the for-profits.

Do our citizens deserve to be protected from degree-granting institutions that certify a level of education that is fraudulent or that does not meet higher academic standards?

But the bottom-line here is whether or not my questions are pertinent or irrelevant to the spirit of your piece, and if so, whether or not anyone is interested in answering them or pointing out any intellectual flaws in them. Another way of putting it might be: "Do the questions contribute to or retard the discussion of the subject?"

Do our citizens deserve to be protected from degree-granting institutions that certify a level of education that is fraudulent or that does not meet higher academic standards?

yes the citizens do.

The problem is DoE is run by the for profit schools and student loan companies-Margret Spellings is a perfect example. They have set up the system for fraud and abuse. Industry stacking the gov oversight agencies with cronies to increase profits. Wall Street is another prime example of these systematic gov oversight failures.

They are milking the middle class and poor for everything they have. And this parasitic draining of the countries wealth is destroying it.

BTW, my appeal to the SCOTUS on education fraud is on the docket for review for February 18th. I highly doubt it will be granted review-but it is there and I am hoping.

Twister asks many questions that need to be asked over and over. There is something wrong with a system of higher education that is inaccessible to many would-be students. These scam colleges would have no prospects for their offerings if the usual private and public schools were open and eager to accept all qualified applicants.

There are various barriers to education. Forty years ago, while pursuing an MBA at SDSU, I found myself in one of those long, slow lines for registration one summer afternoon. Two newly-minted Navy ensigns were behind me in line, resplendent in dress summer white uniforms, and were astounded that they had to stand in line to take a single night-school class that fall. (The whole process required about three hours of standing in line regardless of who you were, and how many classes you wanted to take.) It was no coincidence that soon afterward the infamous National University sprang upon the local scene. (It catered to active-duty military personnel whose fees were paid in full by the Department of Defense.) One of their biggest selling points was that "you only have to register once." That comment was a solar-plexus punch aimed at SDSU and its horse-and-buggy era registration system. Why was SDSU years behind the times? It probably was so popular that nobody really thought that it needed to do better. But a few years later, NU was causing plenty of heartburn for the SDSU president, Day.

These operations such as Bridgepoint cater to the unsophisticated potential student, the one who has little notion of how to apply to a traditional institution, wait for months and only then be told that he/she doesn't quite meet the cut-off, etc., etc. All you need to do is go in, sign up, sign up for a federal loan, and then wait for "classes" to start. Simple, and who's to know that the whole thing is thinly-disguised snake oil?

The answer is for the public and private universities to come out of their ivory towers and seek out those who want college educations. Then they can begin to educate the uneducated in regards to what they need to succeed. But that requires going outside the halls of ivy, meeting and greeting the unwashed, and finally admitting that most of the formalities of college application are just empty gestures and unnecessary. The point is that if traditional schools did the job they should do, these scam schools would have few suckers sign up.

Your final question is a good one: if the traditional non-profit schools were doing their jobs, would the for-profit scams exist? Since I believe that the U.S. is pushing too hard to have a high percentage of young people have a college diploma, I can't say that for-profits exist because non-profits are failing their mission. The for-profits' raison d'etre is the power of telemarketing based on wholly unrealistic dreams. Best, Don Bauder

Those faults drive the rejects and the impatient (and maybe the bs-ers?) to the for-profits for "degrees" that can be used to defraud employers (non caveat emptor?) about the "graduates'" actual qualifications.

Graduates of non-profits are washing dishes, so degraded has the quality of their degree become.

Since not everybody should have a college degree, just how do "we" separate the sheep from the goats and determine how many degrees are granted to whom?

From whence arose the "unrealistic dreams?" (It couldn'a been all the talk about how you can't get a decent job widout one could'a it?)

Or is there an alternative?

Visduh: "The answer is for the public and private universities to come out of their ivory towers and seek out those who WANT college educations."

A friend of mine at SDSU teaches two classes totaling over 700 "students." And I thought that when my wife was trying to teach a class with over 60 she was overloaded. (BTW, there were 3 out of 60 who could construct a sentence in the English language [most were native speakers], the class was overstocked by about 57.)

I could go back to my first set of questions, but I'll not belabor the obvious importance of understanding ratios and trends and incongruities.

How to tell a university (perfesser, deen, chancylor, or pressident) frum a bureaucratacacy? De latter is concerned primarily with administrative convenience (e.g., the rules for securing state funding), whilst the former (quite literally, the extinct form) is a naive intellectual who wants people who WANT to learn, not just jump (or cheat their way) through hoops for a degree. The main people who have to really be qualified are athletes, who will be granted almost any degree they want, and it will most assuredly get them a job with a successful pyramid-climbing alum.

You didn't even mention one of the most dangerous cancers: the degree to which non-profit universities are dependent upon and beholden to companies. Private sector firms are even determining curricula. Money talks. Why must it nauseate? Best, Don Bauder

Oh yes. Federal grants determine university research to a very depressing degree. As I mentioned on a blog the other day, Eisenhower warned about this in the same speech in which he warned of the military-industrial complex. Best, Don Bauder

It surely is a "win win win win" situation when for profit education executives, Wall Street sharpies, DC lobbyists and the appropriate federal government authorities all enjoying the cake. Icing provided by the SCOTUS, of course.

It surely is a "win win win win" situation when for profit education executives, Wall Street sharpies, DC lobbyists and the appropriate federal government authorities all enjoying the cake

Execs on Wall Street run the financial agencies, and the execs in the education industry are identical, running DoE- former DoE secretary Margaret Spelling is the best example you could ever have of this incestuous scam.

We THE PEOPLE, have the option of petitioning our government for redress of grievances.

To do this effectively, we will have to act as if in exile, as we effectively already are. This means strikes and boycotts, and we can organize them via email. But we must avoid any centralization of power.

Publicly traded companies have obligations to their investors to turn the best possible profit; Capitalism 101.

Ashford University provides a regionally accredited (best kind), Bachelor of Arts degree in four years for a maximum of $50,040 versus an average of about $96,000 at non-for-profit universities.

If it is you considering a degree path then that kind of cost difference should give one pause, don't you think?

<p>www.ashford.edu says that they graduated 8,268 students in 2010, 2% at their traditional campus in Iowa and 98% using their online format.

Senator Harkin's points are well taken and I imagine that the school is making adjustments to improve the drop-out rates since it does not reflect well on them. If the students just stay in school they will come out better for the experience and investment in their education.

Online formats are often the ONLY way working adults can earn their degrees while fully employed and managing children, et al.

The test will be whether those degrees are useful in getting jobs, permitting the students to repay the federal government loans. Now, the record is quite poor for the for-profit universities. Best, Don Bauder

This argument is by somebody who is unaware of the type of student typically being enrolled at Bridgepoint or by somebody who is kidding themselves. The statistics that Senator Harkin is putting out there seem in line to what I experienced as an enrollment advisor there for 6 months.

Community College is a better place for Tax Payer dollars on students who barely got through High School. If an online version isn't available at CC's then this tax payer isn't interested in paying Clark for a losing program. Bogeball often times if you put in crap you get crap!
Bridegpoints numbers prove that.

It is a 93 year old institution, regionally accredited since 1950 that introduced its online format six years ago. Why would a Bachelor of Arts degree in, say Business Administration with a Specialization in Information Systems, be any less valuable than a similar degree from SDSU?

What data says otherwise?

No disagreement that the issue of folks dropping out relatively quickly and not earning their degrees is serious. However, those able to persevere and earn their degrees must emerge better off, wouldn't you concede?

It is a 93 year old institution, regionally accredited since 1950 that introduced its online format six years ago. Why would a Bachelor of Arts degree in, say Business Administration with a Specialization in Information Systems, be any less valuable than a similar degree from SDSU?

===============
LOL.....obviously a Bridgepoint/Ashford plant.

I bet you think/claim a law degree from California Western carrys the exact same value as one from Harvard!!!!!!

No disagreement that the issue of folks dropping out relatively quickly and not earning their degrees is serious. However, those able to persevere and earn their degrees must emerge better off, wouldn't you concede?

==========
No I would not agree, in fact I would disagree to the largest extent possible.

The COST to obtain a cheap, nearly useless, online Ashford degree is not worth the paper it is printed on, much less the tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and book costs.

Answer to the Bogeballs first question is Reputation. You are kidding yourself on the difference between the two universities.

Answer to the data question. "Drop out rates!? Entrance standards to get into SDSU versus nothing except a HS diploma.

Comment on third statement... you should concede that the type of student making an attempt at university work at Bridgepoint is better served at a community college as an affordable proving ground particularly on the tax payer dime.

Go see your doctor because the Kool Aid you have drank is burping up into the faces of mindful tax payers concerned about what most should call legalized FRAUD!

I do not agree that an online format is the only way that a person who is employed and/or caring for children can earn a degree. Generations of employed parents have managed it in a conventional classroom setting on a part-time basis. Let nobody forget that it is one's fellow students who are part of the experience, and that doing it solo is just not the same. On-line study is canned study and is about as satisfying as eating cold beans from a can compared to something freshly prepared and hot at the table.

"The quality of the product or service, and the urgency of the buyer and/or seller to make a deal, play a role, too." DB

Certainly. They are components of willingness.

But URGENCY, that is quite a different matter. That can put the buyer or the seller over a barrel--that is all about NEED, and its hierarchy. If you need a tourniquet, it's pretty high on the scale. If you need a gold toilet-seat--well, THAT can be pretty high on the scale too.

Enjoy all the cracks you want, but the truth is that there is indeed a place for schools that can provide quality education via online convenience. There are too many under-educated adults in America with families to feed while working full time that do not have the luxury of being able to drive to a campus for set hours. I notice that USC and other traditional schools are offering such options. It's the future of education for adults. And don't tell me that the thousands of annual graduates are unemployed or working at the local convenience store because their degrees are worthless. Does the system need improvement? You bet, but it is here to stay and should only evolve in a positive path for all parties.

Enjoy all the cracks you want, but the truth is that there is indeed a place for schools that can provide quality education via online convenience.

Well bogeball/aka Bridgepoint mouth piece, it comes down to-like ALL things- value.

What are you getting for your (or I should say taxpayers because they front the $$ loan money) buck from this dimploma mill???? Does the cost justify the means. It absolutely does not.

The value you get from an over priced degree from a diploma mill, for profit school is NOT worth the price you pay in tuition, it is that simple.

We won't even go into the cost to taxpayers from the defaults on the 80%-90% of students who drop out and have no means to pay back the taxpayer backed student loans of an over priced, useless college classes that a community college can give for $200 a class.

Bogeball tax payers are paying for this and the type of student who considers Bridgepoint in most cases can't get into a regular school. It is inline with the drop out rates that Harkin is calling BPI to the table on.

The answer is Community College for them as a proving ground. If you are so certain that BPI's method has value do it on somebody elses dime, without Tax payer funded programs. I for one would love to see Clark make a go of that. He would never do it because he would go broke. He has the drop out rate to prove it.

I am unwilling as a taxpayer to pay for this system you are saying is here to say. Welcome to the Tea party Movement!

I'm an increasingly reluctant fan of universities, period. But the evidence is clear that the for-profits are even more fraudulent money-grubbers than the Big Privates and the Big States.

Certification itself is bs--having a degree has increasingly meant less and less about what one actually can do, but the for-profits are far worse than the non-profits in selling diplomas.

I get a lot of my education on-line, via email and otherwise, but getting a diploma on-line, especially for Big Bucks, is in the same category as getting one by mail.

What we need is a network of brethren who will help each other because it is our duty as citizens of the world, not an even more fraudulent pickpocket teaching us how to pick the pockets of others. That network needs to shift from bs to demonstration of ABILITY, and getting the word around about how who does it best. For example, we all know Sully is a damned good pilot.

I can't belive that our government is giving away loans for education to online companies for second rat education,, When these companies and making TONS of money of the taxpayers ...

This company alone has made more than 700 percent the profit it did only 7years ago off the taxpayers pocket book.. And then Pay there Enrollment Advisers six figures to sell students on buying the courses so that "bridgepoint" can make record profits..

No person that is Call and Enrollment Advisor should be selling Education off the coat tails of it's own people Should be making $100,000 Plus dollars..

And we the taxpayers shouldn't be making people filthy rich Off Our Tax Dollars.. You do not see San Diego state Universty making record profit of it's students,Or UCSD, or any college or university for that matter.. Infact they are cutting classes and giving Teachers less work days cause of Lack of funding and here these Colleges are making Rediculios amount of money off WE THE PEOPLE.. Not right at all.. Not to mention are employers going to hire a person with an Online degree before they Hire a Person ACTUALLY went to Class and Really did the work them selves and really worked hard for there Degree,, " I THINK NOT".. How do you even know that that peson online is the one who did the work and really eraned that Degree.. You don't that is another problem..

Based on your grammar, punctuation, and poor spelling, may I suggest that you enter into a reputable institution for classes to address these flaws? Have a nice drive to your local Junior College. Don't be tardy since that could hurt your grade.

At least your writing prowess matches your flawed representation of what you portray as being factual.

See how strong this country could be if all of us had a quality education?

Yes, we taxpayers are getting taken by the for-profit colleges. But it appears to be the Republicans who are standing up for those picking our pockets. And the Republicans say they are against deficits. Frankly, I think both parties have sold out. Best, Don Bauder

You obviously do not know any of the facts. Lets talk numbers... so you think that the tuition cost of Ashford (about 11,000) per year is 4x greater then say Colorado State? That would mean the cost of Colorado State is 2,750 per year WITHOUT subsidizes? The truth is that an out of state student pays 14,000 per year WITH subsidizes (collegesource.org). So here is the truth... you are wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Mother's little helpers grow up to debate with fallacies, straw-man and otherwise. See-saws, sandboxes, and mud-puddles are too advanced for such intellectual retards, though they like to claim intellectual superiority rather than demonstrate it. When they don't like a logical challenge, they try looking over your shoulder or saying your shoelace is untied or some other infantile ploy to bog down the real discussion. Ignore them. Such playpen politics is a waste of everybody's time.

"On July 1, new regulations are scheduled to go into effect. One would bar schools from paying recruiters according to how many students they enroll" - maybe when this practice ceases, Bridgepoint will be forced to hire their drop-outs. Reminds me of the mortgage industry.

Let us not forget that the issue is fraud and pickpocketing on steroids, SOP for the government-business complex.

It should be about how the best of us help facilitate the understanding of the rest of us. So it's not that the Internet and email have no place in this complex process, it's whether or not fraud is involved.

MIT posts its courses, free for anybody to glean from. Discussion boards and listservs and other forms of social media have a powerful potential that is only beginning to be tapped. Traditional universities should lead, not follow, and if for-profits beat them to it, let's hope that competition will cull out the worst of the pickpockets.

For example, look at the value of this interaction right here on the Bauder blog--I don't know about the rest, but I have learned plenty and my understanding of a lot of things has been greatly facilitated by Don and those who give of their time and their life experience to share . . . But even so, this site has great unrealized potential that lies dormant. Why?

We hope that the site ultimately realizes its potential. One problem is that I turn 75 in May. I already do a weekly column that takes a lot of research. Then I post things on the blog, averaging at least one a day, I suspect. And I respond to those who comment both on columns and the blog. I am not complaining. I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it. I'm simply offering one reason why we haven't realized full potential. Another reason is that there is a helluva lot of competition out there. There are a lot of very, very smart bloggers and wisdom-filled blog sites. That's a problem that daily newspapers have. Best, Don Bauder

F the Department of Education... your just pissed because all your non-profit schools (like state schools) dont get all the government help they used to. Here is the logic: because Bridgepoint makes lots of money and the students dont always go through the program we should be pissed and cry. Has the writer of this article ever been to Community College where a class goes from 45 students to 25 in two weeks of classes? "Well.. yes but Community College is less money and so it does not cost the student a default status" -- EXCEPT THAT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE IS SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNEMNT WITH TAX PAYERS DOLLARS! Pick your poison! Dont cry just cause someone can make a buck and actually help people get an education at the same time.

Since Bridgepoint relies on the federal government for more than 90% of its revenue (that includes those in the military it recruits), I don't think the company can be cited as a great example of capitalism in action. Best, Don Bauder

We the tax payers actually pay for people in non-profit state schools through BOTH student loans and subsidizes. All I am saying is that there is no difference. Well... there is one difference Bridgepoint employs like 5,000 people (third in San Diego)... but who is counting. And I did not even mention capitalism in my post. If you are speaking in reference to my name then that is simply because I think people should have the choice to make money... even Bridgepoint. And in your opinion what is a good example? Let me guess, do you think the government is a good example of capitalism in action? Taking lots of money and giving to pork spending accounts and false pension plans? Bridgepoint is a perfect example of capitalism, even though that was not my point.

We the tax payers actually pay for people in non-profit state schools through BOTH student loans and subsidizes. All I am saying is that there is no difference.

No, there are major differences.

1) unqualified students are ot accepted at CSU or UC schools
2) Most graduate CSU or UC
3) Public schools, especially here on the graduate level are subsidized next to nothing today, only undergrad
4) the education you receive actually has value at a public school, UC, CSU and even an AA from a CC. Not so at diploma mills like Bridgepoint

I will repeat, the SMALL, next to NOTHING value these diploma mills give is outweighed 10K to 1 harm and financial damage they do to the student and taxpayers.
.
.
.
Bridgepoint is a perfect example of capitalism,
================
No it is not-it is in fact the wrost case and it is not even capitalism, it is communism. They are defrauding the taxpayers through the student loan system. The default rate-the true default rate not the 2 year co hort rate the DoE uses-is over 75% at diploma mills like Bridgepoint. You cannot con me straw man, I know this stuff inside out, more than you and more than about 99.999999999999% of Americans.

You want the true drfault rates on a diploma mills like Bridgepoint, Goggle Erin Dillon at Education Sector in DC, read her research.
.
.
.
I think people should have the choice to make money... even Bridgepoint.
=============
LOL @ "make money"..yeah right. I bet you think Bernie Madoff and Enron were just "making money" too.......Fraud is not "making money", it is scamming.

You would fit in real good with the public employee unions who claim that GED employees are worth $200K comp packages......

You are for sure a Bridgepoint sock puppet, there is no doubt about that.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. My stats are from the federal government your are from fantastical ideas that make you sound like you know what you are talking about. ALLLLLLLLLLL schools are ripping off students man. No education is worth that much!!! Did you not read the words "All I am saying is that there is no difference". You really WANT me to be a puppet but I have news, you are the one that sounds like a puppet. And I should rephrase my statement earlier because you are right. I do not think that Bridgepoint is a good example of capitalism... what I mean to say is that it is the consequence of capitalism. I do not agree with Enron or others of the like but I do like capitalism and unfortunatly some companies take it to the extreme. In saying that, I will take free market/capitalism and bridgepoint any day over whatever system you abide by. THAT is why it is a perfect example.

And I should rephrase my statement earlier because you are right. I do not think that Bridgepoint is a good example of capitalism...

We the tax payer front the money for both but for those misguided students who sign up at BPI who really belong in CC as a more affordable option. They will owe much more and likely default for a much higher rate.

I would respect your argument more if BPI was borrowing there own money and not using Tax payer dollars in this pissing contest.

F the Department of Education... your just pissed because all your non-profit schools (like state schools) dont get all the government help they used to. ..... Dont cry just cause someone can make a buck and actually help people get an education at the same time.

Capitalism_is_cool 1

I have to laugh at this clowns grammar, and it is obvious the clown is a Bridgepoint student;

"...YOUR just pissed..."

Hey clown did they ever teach you the difference between "your" and "you're" in 5th grade???

"Hey clown did they ever teach you the difference between 'your' and 'you're' in 5th grade???"

Mr. Puppy, esq., please...you are the second-to-last person who ought to be laughing at other people's writing skills, unless you want your comments marked up in red and handed back; it's usually a bad idea to find fault with the fault finders. But I suppose it's a very good thing that you do enjoy the free entertainment, as I'm sure Don would agree. (The very, very last: Fumbler.)

I love people like you... miss the whole point of the post because I messed up one thing. Actually, I am an officer and civil engineer for the U.S. NAVY I have an architecture degree which is something Bridgepoint probably does not offer. You mistake my caring about people writing, in my opinion, misleading articles for caring about Bridgepoint. Three people "commented" on what I said without actually commenting on what I said... YOU'RE part of that awesome club. Why don't you respond now or did I spell something wrong?

Ok so in your capacity I am assuming you have no experience in dealing with the type of student applicant that BPI enrollment advisors are coaching into attending university classes.

You ought to do it sometime and consider what is really going on with Tax Payer money. It would require you to leave your current Tax Payer funded postiion with our Navy Department but still you might understand some of our concerns better.

So, you're a couple of years older than I--so I dig, dig? I wasn't complaining about the quality or quality of YOUR work, I was complaining about the quality of the Reader setup and the wasting of my time with trivia about punch-u-ashun and speling. Inane shavetails can be ignored.

The higher in the hierarchy one's alma mater and degree the more intelligent one is presumed to be. This is gonna cost somebody big bucks.

The presumption that that kind of “investment” is going to pay off big enough to get the “student” out of debt before retirement is questionable.

If the student gets competence along with the piece of paper, she (or he) MIGHT get lucky, but one thing is for certain, the loan shark can’t lose. If the paper doesn’t translate into big bucks, the student/sucker is on the hook for a long time.

“Accreditation” MAY mean something, or it might have been bought.

One old-fashioned way to get ahead in the world is to start sweeping floors and work one’s self up to The Top. That requires enough intelligence to actually learn how to PERFORM, or how to screw the suckers out of anything they can beg, borrow, or steal.

One thing universities sometimes get you is CONTACTS, otherwise known as the inwykiwyb method.

All life experience, including formal “training,” is educational.

If you think you’re gonna get something for nothing, you’re going to have to steal it.

I don't know how many times I've found your pieces well worth responding to, but it probably gets 99.999% of my effort. I don't know where all these other "very, very smart bloggers and wisdom-filled blog sites" are, and they certainly don't respond to responders. It's damned near humanly impossible--but hey, I'm not incinerating that you are inhuman, only the best in the business. And the Reader should compensate you accordingly. They could do even better if they led with your pieces or at least stuck your name on what passes for a masthead with links to both your essays and blogs, AND if they set up their machine to provide email notification to responders when their posts have been responded to. That might provide some continuity and coherence to the vital subjects at hand, even when "contributors" pee in the play-pen.

They'd better be reading your pieces; I presume they've heard of the primacy of the feedback loop. If not, they'll need to hire someone who has and knows what it means. I suspect they would not pay my rate--a pitiful percentage of actual gains, aka, PERFORMANCE pay.

For starters, they need to get rid of this ridiculous "Reply" system that scrunches up the print into ten-character wide colums. Hilarious. (Nothing to do with the SOS.)